Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Superfund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parsippany council expresses support for New Jersey Climate Superfund Act after public comments; measure passes 4‑1
Summary
After public testimony both opposing and supporting the New Jersey Climate Superfund Act, the Parsippany Township Council voted 4‑1 to adopt a resolution supporting the bill’s passage in Trenton.
The Parsippany (Troy Hills) Township Council voted 4‑1 on Wednesday to adopt a resolution supporting the New Jersey Climate Superfund Act, after public comments from residents who urged both support and opposition.
Longtime resident Bob Venezia spoke against the resolution during public comment, calling the measure “a bad bill” and arguing it would function as a tax that energy companies would pass to consumers. “The Climate Superfund Act or CSA is a bad bill, which should not be supported in a resolution by any council member for the following reasons,” Venezia said, and he outlined economic objections including his estimate of an assessment equivalent to about 44 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Other public commenters and council members spoke in favor of holding major polluters responsible for climate‑related costs. A council member replying to Venezia said the measure signals support for making polluters responsible and compared the proposal to past environmental cleanup funds, saying, in part, “If you’re polluting, you gotta clean it up. Plain and simple.” The meeting record shows there was back‑and‑forth between speakers during the public comment period.
The council’s recorded roll call on resolution R2025‑48 shows four members voting to support the resolution and one member voting no. The meeting minutes record the vote as: Hernandez — yes; McGrath — yes; Musella — no; Neglia — yes; (Carifi/ Kurifi) — yes, yielding a 4‑1 result.
The resolution is a nonbinding expression of the council’s support for the state bill and does not by itself create local regulation or a funding mechanism. Council members who spoke described the resolution as a statement of policy intended to press the state Legislature to consider the proposed law; opponents argued the measure would harm consumers and businesses and urged reliance on market mechanisms such as cap‑and‑trade.
The council accepted the resolution after public comment and debate. The council did not adopt any ordinance or local tax at this meeting related to the Climate Superfund Act; the action recorded is an endorsement asking state lawmakers to consider the bill.
